Replacement garage and first floor annexe

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 17 July 2018 by D Cramond BSc MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 31 July 2018 Appeal Ref: APP/T0355/D/18/3201798 1 Memorial Cottage, Fifield Road, Fifield, Maidenhead, SL6 2NX  The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.  The appeal is made by Mr L Page against the decision of the Council of the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead  The application Ref 18/00008, dated 5 December 2017, was refused by notice dated 21 March 2018.  The development proposed is a replacement garage and first floor annexe. Decision 1. The appeal is dismissed. Main issues 2. I consider the main issues are:-  Whether the proposal constitutes an inappropriate form of development within the Green Belt for the purposes of the National Planning Policy Framework (the ‘Framework’) and development plan policy.  The effect of the development on the openness of the Green Belt.  The effect of the development on the character and appearance of the host property and the locality.  If the development is inappropriate to the Green Belt for the purposes of the Framework and development plan policy, whether the harm by reason of that inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances required to exist to justify the development. Reasons 3. The appeal site is occupied by an end of terrace house in a large garden which contains a row of 3 flat roofed garages behind and to the side of the dwelling. A store adjoining the garages has been demolished. The locality is an edge of village rural setting with a scatter of varied properties and open land across the road. The proposal is as described above and would involve the development of a new double garage and garden room / store at ground level with 2 bedrooms and en-suites and a kitchen / living room on the first floor. Pitched roofs are shown with the first floor partly incorporated within the main slopes and the use of dormers, roof lights and gable-end windows. Appeal Decision APP/T0355/D/18/3201798 2 Whether the proposal is inappropriate development 4. The Framework states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. The replacement of a building is not, however, inappropriate provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces. There is no definition of ‘materially larger’ in the Framework. 5. The national policy advice has to be read together with the relevant development plan policy which in this case includes Saved Policy GB2 in the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Local Plan (incorporating alterations adopted June 2003) (LP). Amongst other matters this policy restricts replacement buildings in the Green Belt if it would lead to a material increase in the scale of the development on the site. 6. Footprint increase may be more modest but given the marked increase which would prevail in terms of height, volume and bulk, I am in no doubt that the scheme before me would represent a materially larger structure than the building it would replace. It would thus run contrary to the prevailing policy control for development in the Green Belt. 7. On the first issue, I therefore conclude that this proposal would represent inappropriate development for the purposes of the Framework and the development plan. I attach substantial weight to the harm caused by this scheme representing inappropriate development. Effect on Openness 8. The Framework makes it clear that an essential characteristic of Green Belts is their openness. Open can mean the absence of development irrespective of the degree of visibility of the land in question from public vantage points; development which would harm openness could be acceptable visually. In other words, openness of the Green Belt has a spatial aspect as well as a visual aspect and the absence of visual intrusion does not in itself mean that there is no impact on the openness of the Green Belt as a result of development. In this case the proposal would involve the addition of a very notable new volume and bulk of development. The change over the existing situation would be appreciable and the scheme would make a marked difference to openness within this area. 9. LP Saved Policy GB2 includes a range of restrictions for replacement buildings and one of those is that a new structure should not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt. As noted above I would deem the appeal scheme to be one which would fail that test. 10. I conclude that there would be conflict with a key objective of the Framework and the development plan and I attach substantial weight to this impact upon openness of the Green Belt. Effect on character and appearance 11. I would agree with the Appellant that the existing flat roofed garages are not attractive and they make no positive contribution to the visual qualities of the property or the wider scene. They are however low key, irrefutably subservient to the main property, and do not unduly draw the eye within the Appeal Decision APP/T0355/D/18/3201798 3 streetscene. Even with this set-back siting the planned development would be quite the opposite in these three characteristics. 12. LP Saved Policy DG1 is relevant. Amongst other matters it seeks to ensure that new development is compatible with its surrounds and has suitable regard to the scale and building line of adjacent properties. In my opinion the proposal would not be in sympathy with the host property or protect local distinctiveness and the character of the area. It would be an over-sized outbuilding which would be an anomaly in terms of mass, positioning and general design and I conclude that the appeal scheme would run contrary to this policy. I attach substantial weight to this issue. Other considerations 13. Neighbours and the Parish Council raise no objections and the scheme would have no residential amenity or parking impact. The gable front has taken its cue from a prominent gable on the main dwelling and I can see that materials and some design elements have been shaped by a rural idiom. The existing building is not an attractive proposition, although there would likely be other ways of dealing with this phenomenon. 14. I have considered the appeal decision drawn to my attention (APP/T0355/D/17/3170221) but found very little in the way of direct comparison given the nature, relative and actual scale, and position of the attached extension in question. In any event I must determine this case on its own merits. 15. I acknowledge the points made within the submission and I would give each of the considerations put forward by the Appellant limited weight. Balance and conclusions 16. In accordance with the terms of the Framework, the proposed development would represent an inappropriate form of development in the Green Belt. The Framework requires that substantial weight must be attributed to harm by way of inappropriateness to the Green Belt. Additionally, I have found above that the proposal would be unacceptably harmful to the openness of the Green Belt and this also carries substantial weight. 17. Whilst I have afforded weight in the planning balance to the other considerations raised in support of the development these, either individually or taken together, do not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and its openness which I have identified. Therefore, very special circumstances do not exist and permission should not be granted as the proposal is contrary to guidance in the Framework and development plan policies. 18. The fact that the development would have adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the host property and the locality is a matter that adds to my concerns over the proposal. However, whatever my conclusions on this non-Green Belt harm it would not have made any difference to my findings on the question of very special circumstances. Appeal Decision APP/T0355/D/18/3201798 4 Overall conclusion 19. My overall conclusion is that the proposal would not accord with the pertinent elements of the Framework and the development plan. The appeal should therefore fail. D Cramond INSPECTOR